US v. Jimmy Wright

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00006-RJC-1,3:12-cv-00460-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999576721]. Mailed to: Jimmy Alonzo Wright. [15-6022]

Appeal: 15-6022

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JIMMY ALONZO WRIGHT, a/k/a Jimmy Alfonzo Wright,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00006-RJC-1; 3:12-cv-00460-RJC)

Submitted:

April 28, 2015

Decided:

May 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Alonzo Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6022

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Alonzo Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. *
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wright has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability

*

and

Accordingly, we deny

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

The court correctly construed the nunc pro tunc motion,
the motion to alter or amend, and the motion for summary
judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions.

2

Appeal: 15-6022

Doc: 6

dispense

Filed: 05/04/2015

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3